In theory, tomorrow’s NSW state election should be the Greens’ finest political hour. Voters are furious with Labor for the scandals, the broken promises, the revolving door of premiers, the botched electricity sale. Yet they’re hardly swooning over Barry O’Farrell. The latest Newspoll shows 39% of voters disapprove of his performance — a six-month high. And climate change is dominating headlines, courtesy of the carbon tax debate in Canberra.
But all has not gone smoothly in the campaign. Both the Greens’ big hopes for lower house success — Fiona Byrne in Marrickville and Jamie Parker in Balmain — have been mired in controversy: Byrne for supporting Marrickville Council’s boycott of Israel, Parker for marketing dodgy products such as Horny Goat Weed. And although election campaigns are becoming ever more presidential, the NSW Greens do not have an official leader à la Bob Brown. Lead senate candidate David Shoebridge only entered office last year and is still relatively unknown in the wider community.
Nevertheless, if the Greens pick up two lower house seats and increase their vote in the Legislative Assembly, they will be able to hail the campaign a triumph.
Earlier this week we reviewed the policy programs offered by Labor and the Libs; today it’s time to examine the Greens’ pitch for power.
Education: the Greens are committed to ending funding for wealthy private schools and want to redirect $780 million of federal and state funds from the non-government sector to public education. They also want to boost the number of public school teachers by 6000 or 12% — paid for by freezing funding for independent schools at their 2003 levels plus inflation. In particular, they want to boost teacher numbers in disadvantaged areas. The Greens have been strong supporters of the Labor government’s ethics program as an alternative to scripture classes.
Health: The Greens are opposed to casemix (aka activity-based) funding for hospitals — a key plank of the COAG health reform agreement. They slam casemix — a pay-for-performance arrangement that encourages hospitals to use resources efficiently — as an economically rationalist approach to healthcare. The Greens want an extra $100 million allocated to the public dental health care system with a focus on increasing access for rural Australians, Aborigines and seniors. The party also wants to ban the sale of sale of junk food in schools and junk food advertising during children’s television viewing times.
Transport: Unlike Barry O’Farrell, the Greens are cycling supporters and want to redirect 5% of the Road and Traffic Authority’s gargantuan budget to bike-riding infrastructure. The party does not support the construction of any new roadways in NSW. O’Farrell says the north-west and south-west rail lines must be given priority over the Parramatta-to-Epping link; the Greens want to build them all at once. They also want to extend the light rail network all the way to Penrtith.
The economy: Little to report here. The Greens have released policies on genetic engineering and s-xual identity but not the economy. But the party says it would boost government revenue and ease cost-of-living pressures by cutting investment in coal-fired power stations and closing the desalination plant. The Greens also argue that their environmental policies — including the construction of three giant solar thermal plants in western NSW — would create jobs. They want a ban on new coal mines and to close the state’s seven coal-fired power stations by 2036.
Pol Pot would be proud
“Education: the Greens are committed to ending funding for wealthy private schools ”
What is a “wealthy” school? Have we got any in Australia? In the USA there are some with large endowments which provide the income to make it possible for them to accept students who can’t pay the fees. That’s “wealthy”.
Who thinks that a school is wealthy because it has a large swimming pool and gymnasium (especially if it is a boarding school which has to provide the complete neighbourhood facilities for its students)? The are liabilities more than assets. Some, conceivably, might be used to raise money from use by local residents and summer conference participants but that is peripheral and trivial. They cost money to maintain and anyone who doesn’t understand why “wealthy” is a ridiculous, indeed dishonestly tendentious epithet should consider the “wealth” of someone who owns nothing but a large heritage house and garden which he likes to live in but can only afford to by working hard at getting paying gawkers through the front gate and occasionally running a few sideshows and pony rides in the grounds.
To be wealthy is to have a secure source of a substantial income. So let’s have respectable honest arguments from the propagandists who want people who pay for their children’s education to pay more as well as paying for the education of other people’s children.
Ah yes, the Greens. Good to see, judging by their policies, that they believe in the Magic Pudding, plenty for everyone, and no Green constituent has to go without or pay for it.
“Education: the Greens are committed to ending funding for wealthy private schools and want to redirect $780 million of federal and state funds from the non-government sector to private education.”
I must confess I have no time for the Greens these days, but I do think that the above statement is confusing in the extreme. Surely, the Gs are not proposing $780 million be invested in private education?
Definitely a disappointing Greens offering to the people of NSW.